Mr Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday evening, we were discussing the curtailment of State expenditure. I want to voice the opinion that one of the most important factors influencing State expenditure is specifically the expenditure required on staff. Limiting this expenditure on staff is potentially one of the most important means of reducing overall expenditure.

The effective utilisation of manpower is one of the methods with the greatest potential of containing the budget of State departments, because personnel expenditure is a very important facet of it, as I have said. For this reason one of the major bottlenecks is the wasteful use of manpower by utilising the personnel of various government institutions to do the same kind of work. The overlapping and duplication of work and the resulting unprofitable expenditure cannot be justified. Officials of local authorities, regional authorities and the central Government often carry out similar assignments.

I want to point out that now, with the phasing out of the second tier of government, this aspect should also be given thorough consideration. The way in which the work of the various authorities should be carried out must be determined. I realise that the hon the Minister of Finance is probably not in a position to determine in which way the various state departments should do their jobs. When the expenditure of State funds is involved, I am nonetheless of the opinion that the onus rests on the particular department to ensure that there will be no unnecessary expenditure. I realise that this is a demanding and sometimes difficult task, but it is certainly of importance.

One could be asked what one had in mind in making such a statement, and what specific cases could serve as examples. As the time available to me is limited, I shall briefly mention a few examples. The fragmentation of similar work done by the health officers and the traffic officers of the various authorities is striking. These officers provide services from regional offices which could be provided equally well by the local officers. The travelling costs and travelling time involved is a waste of money.

The utilisation of professional services is a second bottleneck. We often hear of the problems and complaints from local bodies such as those of architects, engineers, accountants and others who are overlooked when State departments carry out certain projects. With all due respect, why should an architect or a consulting engineer travel from Pretoria to handle a project in Cape Town or vice versa? Why could the local people not be used? Is this fair towards them? I know of cases where accountants were overlooked while other people had to travel 200 to 300 kilometre to do the job. I think there is certainly no justification for it. I think it is also unfair towards those local bodies who are not given the opportunity to do that work. [Interjections.] Our just talking about it, will not help at all while the state departments simply continue to go about things in the old way. I hope attention will be paid to this. I accept that there are cases where special services require special people and where it is not possible to make use of local people. There are nonetheless specific cases where the local professionals are fully equipped to carry out the task. Nonetheless people are brought in from elsewhere to do the job. I can by no means find justification for it.

There are thousands upon thousands of people being kept busy with administrative work whose services could be dispensed with. Let me mention one such case. A levy on petrol and other fuel is paid into a road fund. That money is used to build roads. A similar fund obtained from car licences, is managed at considerable cost by various bodies. Provincial administrations, municipalities and even post offices collect the licence fees. Why should two separate sources be tapped at considerable cost for the same purpose?

Every year long queues of people have to wait to pay for their licences. The levy on fuel could also be a fair basis of payment for the service. The vehicle owner who only uses his car or truck sporadically, pays the same licence fee at present as someone who uses his vehicle on a daily basis. At present considerable manpower is being utilised to trace those who neglect to pay their motor vehicle licence fees; even for months after the final date of payment has been reached. Vehicle owners from adjoining areas, who do not pay this licence fee, but who use our roads, would by means of a fuel levy make their rightful contribution to the roads that they use.

Finally, let me just ask, because my time has expired …

Hear, hear!

That hon member is saying, “hear, hear”. If he would listen, he would receive very good information from this side of the House which could give him a better understanding of things. [Interjections.]

In concluding, let me just ask why we have to plead for a system over many years. Appeals have been made over a decade or longer for the motor vehicle insurance system which is now going to come into use. It is also a very good step that has been taken. Why should appeals also have to be made over many years in regard to motor licence fees? Why could we not spare the public the inconvenience of having to stand in long queues every year to buy their motor licences? Why could there not be a levy? Then all those administrative costs would be eliminated. It is a much fairer levy and it would save a lot of money.

I see the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is casting a glance at the hon the Minister of Finance. I think they are good friends. They would certainly be able to settle this matter.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Welkom, who has had experience in the second tier of government, has made some valid points to which I am sure the hon the Minister will respond in due course. I do not intend following him in his argument because I want to return to the points of criticism levelled against the Budget from this side of the House yesterday when the amendment was moved.

Our amendment attempts to highlight in general terms our main criticisms of the hon the Minister’s Budget. We have highlighted the Government’s failure to eliminate inefficiency, wastage and unproductive expenditure. Secondly, we have tried to highlight the Government’s failure to abandon policies, and particularly the policy of apartheid which has dragged the country down to its lowest political and economic level in history. Thirdly, we have tried to highlight the Government’s failure to demonstrate any real plans to restore the health of the economy and the stability of the country.

These are totally justifiable criticisms of the Government’s policies and attitudes as a whole over a very long period. We have listed a series of failures on the part of the Government to take appropriate action to deal with both the political and the economic situation in South Africa. The facts are there for all to see. When one looks at the situation of government in South Africa, one sees that there is a fumbling inertia about every aspect of the Government’s approach to the problems in the country which is frightening at this point in our history.

In this situation one almost has sympathy for the hon the Minister who is charged with the responsibility of managing the country’s fiscal and financial policies against such a background of inertia, hesitation and confusion on the part of the Government of which he is a member. It is this hesitation, confusion and ambivalence which have contributed in a very large measure to the instability which exists all around the country at the present time.

While we are discussing this Budget, we must be conscious of the fact that the country is locked into a situation of continuing unrest and violence and, as we sit in this House, nobody knows from day to day what escalation the next day or the next week will bring. So, there is a situation of instability which clearly makes it impossible to plot any definite course for economic revival with any degree of accuracy, unless that plotting is accompanied by an attempt to find a political solution to the problems of South Africa.

I think it is trite to say that political reform is the bottom line when one looks at the problems of South Africa at the present time. Without political reform there can be no certainty in budgetary formulation or speculation and without it there can be no prospect of a diminution of the political and social unrest which dominates the South African situation at the present time.

In this situation there would seem to be three courses open to the Government. Firstly, it can go for far-reaching, positive and urgent reform. Secondly, it can sink back into an escalating siege situation which is the course that the two right-wing parties in this House seem to favour. Following this course, they can then sit back and prepare for the worst. They can beat their White chests, boast of White exclusivity, revert to the laager and wait for the worst to happen.

The third course, which is perhaps as bad as the second course, is that they can dither between the other two courses, either doing nothing or doing too little too late, thus perpetuating the uncertainty and the instability with the inevitable consequence that we will eventually be dragged into the siege situation. [Interjections.] This seems to be the position which the Government is occupying at the present time which, I believe, holds disastrous prospects for this country, its economy and its people.

The Government has committed itself to the rhetoric of reform. We had the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament last year, as well as his Opening Address this year. We have had the extensive advertising campaign this year, trying to sell the State President’s speech made at the end of January. We have had references to cabinet committees, we have had references to statutory councils and a number of other verbal commitments to reform, but there is as yet no evidence that anything meaningful is happening.

When one looks around the country and one is conscious of the urgency of the situation, this is the most disturbing feature of the lot, because people are urgently looking for real tangible signs of reform in South Africa. Moreover, when one looks at Government utterances, when expectations are aroused that the Government is perhaps serious and sincere at this time in its reform attempts, when that is the situation, the Government then retreats back to its old philosophy whenever it is required to be definitive as to what it means by the rhetoric it uses.

We saw the classic example of this during the no-confidence debate when we went back to the permanence of the Group Areas Act—from the hon the Minister of National Education in particular. We went back to the permanence of having permanently segregated schools in South Africa. We went back to the position occupied by the Government that there has to be compulsory group identification, the Population Registration Act and all that goes with it. We were reverting back to the old philosophy behind the apartheid policy of the Nationalist Party.

In addition to that the Government continues to show itself reluctant to talk to people, despite its commitment to negotiation, other than on a very selective basis, and refuses to involve itself in contact with others or to negotiate with other groups with whom it believes it will not agree. That is the problem one sees. They talk about negotiation, and when one presses them as to whom they are negotiating with, one finds it is a selected group of people; and when negotiation opportunities are offered in other spheres, if they do not believe that they will be in agreement with those people, then they show a serious reluctance to enter into such negotiation proceedings.

While the Government retreats in this fashion and displays its arrogance towards proposed solutions other than its own or any negotiations other than negotiations which it deems appropriate, the situation in the country is worsening at an alarming rate. In fact, to many the aim of ungovernability is seen to be succeeding. This is the tragedy of the situation—the talk of ungovernability. When many people standing outside Parliament look at the situation they will believe that the aim of ungovernability is in fact succeeding. I think that is a very serious situation for us to face in this House.

Township unrest shows no sign of abating, internal economic boycotts are an ever-present threat, and labour unrest and division loom starkly on the horizon ahead of us. It is a very grim picture and we have to be realistic and recognise just how grim the situation is in South Africa at the present time. Notwithstanding the hon the Minister of Law and Order’s protestations during the debate yesterday, there is clear evidence of an inability to provide security for ordinary citizens in many areas of South Africa. [Interjections.] The Police and the Security Forces are strained to the limit and no one can blame them for this state of affairs. They are after all trying to deal with the situation—a near impossible situation created by the political omissions and by the political misdemeanours of the Government which they serve. [Interjections.]

In many areas there is little chance of providing security for ordinary law-abiding citizens in the townships, and a situation of near anarchy exists. That is also a factual statement.

It is not a factual statement.

The hon the Minister says it is not a factual statement. I thought he might say that but is he happy with the situation in the townships? Does he believe that he is controlling the situation in the townships? Does he believe that he is able to provide the security which ordinary people need in the townships?

I say you are exaggerating.

The hon the Minister says I am exaggerating, but I would like the hon the Minister to waken from his dream world and face the realities of the situation in South Africa. The reality of the situation which is now an accepted fact is that there has to be a strong police or military presence around the Black townships, and all of this, I believe, presents a frightening scenario of the situation in South Africa. Later that situation may escalate further when we may have to haul a ring around the White communities in South Africa to protect us from the lawlessness and the unrest which exists in other parts of the country.

What makes the scenario even more frightening is the Government’s reaction to it. I think too that that is epitomised by the reaction now on the part of the hon the Minister of Law and Order. Despite the Government’s verbal commitment to reform, as far as the ordinary individual in South Africa is concerned there appears to be no evidence of any grand plan to deal with the situation. The Government more often than not appears to be mesmerised by threats either from the extreme right or the extreme left, and stalls in the middle—right between the two. The hon the Minister of Law and Order appears to be mesmerised permanently.

Oh, go away!

The Government, Sir, time and time again when one believes that they are prepared to move in a direction of reform, move either to the extreme right or the extreme left, and then stall right in the middle. I believe it should instead be setting out as a matter of urgency—while forgetting to worry overly much about what is happening at either extreme—to secure the middle ground occupied by the vast majority of South Africans of all races who seek nothing more than a peaceful solution to all our problems based upon the recognition of the human dignity of all and the rights and aspirations of all sections of our community in a common society. That is what they ought to be doing, Sir. It is urgent that this middle ground be unified and accommodated, and this, I believe, is where the Government is failing so dismally.

We have had a very good example during the past few days of the middle ground in Natal—those attending the Natal Indaba— sitting and discussing problems at second-tier Government level. I commend this example to the Government, Sir, and I certainly trust that the Government, when it looks at what comes out of the Natal Indaba, will recognise this for what it is—a sincere attempt by the people who see themselves occupying the middle ground in South Africa to find a peaceful solution on a non-racial basis to a regional problem. I hope, Sir, the Government will not try to preempt the outcome of that indaba by taking steps which would make the function of that indaba more difficult to perform than it already is.

We were told by the National Party’s mouthpiece yesterday of the purposes of the next Federal Congress of the National Party which is to be held in August, and in graphic terms Die Nasionalis poses an alternative between “samewerking of selfmoord”—co-operation or suicide. We are told that the congress will consider the Government’s attitude to the continuing unrest in the country at its August session, and that it will consider too further constitutional adaptations in order to meet the situation. Once again, however, I have the fear that the interests of South Africa are being made subordinate to the whims of the National Party.

That is indeed so! [Interjections.]

Sir, are we to expect no meaningful changes between now and August of this year? I ask this, Sir, because we are talking here about a period of four months, which happens to be a very long time in the present South African situation. We are now halfway through a parliamentary session. We are in the second half of this session, a time in which we should be discussing the Budget only. However, when one looks at the legislative record up to this stage it appears that very little legislation of any real import has come before this Parliament so far, particularly when measured against the terms of the State President’s speech and the expectations that were aroused by that speech.

I note that the Federal Congress of the National Party is to be held in Durban in August, and presumably it will be opened by the State President. Here, Mr Speaker, I have good news. I have good news for the State President. I have good news for the Government. I believe, Sir, that when the State President speaks in August of this year he will have a distinct advantage in that— and I believe I can state this with conviction—he will not be able to make a more disastrous speech than the one he delivered in August of last year—also in Durban. [Interjections.] Well, Sir, he will be going to that congress with that one advantage! [Interjections.]

Sir, whatever the deliberations at the Federal Congress of the National Party may produce in Durban the Government ought to know from its own experience and from the situation which exists in South Africa today what it needs to do. In our view, Sir, the only way in which to change the situation in South Africa is, firstly, to set about urgently to dismantle apartheid in all its forms. That is absolutely fundamental. Secondly, what the Government should be doing, Sir, is to look at unbanning political organisations and allowing a free exchange of political views in South Africa. Thirdly, Sir, the Government should be prepared to engage in negotiation, not selectively but with a wide range of groups, about what is to take the place of apartheid because, when one looks at the future of South Africa, it is clear that this country cannot survive unless apartheid is abandoned and abandoned quickly. We want to look at what is going to take the place of apartheid, and I believe there is ample scope for negotiation on that basis and on that basis alone. The Government, in its attempt to meet the situation, ought to have learnt by now that these issues are fundamental if stability is to be restored in South Africa.

The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid referred earlier during the session to the problem of having to deal with a “moving target”. He was talking about the problem he is experiencing in the educational field in meeting Black demands. He said that as one demand was met a new demand was made. So he is, as it were, having to deal with a moving target. One can appreciate the problems the hon the Minister is encountering. However, he and his Government must realise that that target will continue to move until they are able to redress the political grievances of the people of South Africa as a whole. If they have not realised that already, now is the time for them to do so. That is fundamental to the whole issue.

I believe that, in order to do this, it is going to be necessary for them to invoke the aid of all interested groups—internal groups and some external groups—so that they can come forward with an acceptable manifesto of reform to be negotiated. Thereafter they have to try to achieve a moratorium on violence and unrest while the negotiation process is under way. Until we are able to do that, we will not move away from the impasse in which we find ourselves as far as negotiation is concerned. It is an impasse caused on the one hand by the Government, for they say it is not really possible to negotiate meaningfully with the whole cross-section of the South African population while the situation of unrest and violence prevails in the country. On the other hand, however, there are other groups who maintain that they will not go to the negotiating table while their leaders are detained, while their organisations are banned, while people are restricted, and while apartheid continues to exist.

So we have the impasse; and the only way out of it is to come out with an acceptable manifesto of reform to enable negotiations to proceed and, in the meantime, try to invoke the assistance of others to produce the climate to make this possible.

I believe that if one had a realistic manifesto one could invoke the assistance of the frontline states and our Western allies in order to try to see to it that while we are negotiating we could have a situation that would be conducive to real negotiation and productive results.

The Government will, however, have to show itself in far greater earnest than it has up until now if it is to achieve these goals. Until it does so, instability will continue. Until it does so, unrest will continue in South Africa. Finally, until it does so, it will not be possible for this hon Minister to produce a Budget which is in any way realistic when measured against the realities of the South African situation.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Berea delivered a string of clichés. We are used to that. He also suggested some answers—we are used to these answers as well—when he said that what is required of us is a manifesto of reform. He apparently considers that that will give us new opportunities.

Allow me to say that if that hon member thinks that the deep divisions in this society and that the problems of a complex society—such as ours is—in the great movement of history in which we find ourselves at the moment, can be solved by sloganeering, he is wrong. If ever one wanted a statement of intent, a statement of how civilised man goes about things, a statement of the universal values that free men can associate themselves with, one need only turn to the Opening Address of the State President. [Interjections.] The hon member for Green Point may laugh but that address was a statement of values that are universally accepted. They are accepted by people in South Africa and by well-meaning people abroad. [Interjections.]

So far that looks like sloganeering. Where is the substance?

The fact of the matter is that that document was a serious speech, one of the greatest speeches ever delivered in this House. [Interjections.] Yet that hon member writes it off and suggests that we should now come forward with a Prog-type slogan that would, so to speak, constitute a new beginning. I do not want to disagree with the hon member. I think any serious person in South Africa knows the plight this country finds itself in. I think one has to be a blind man not to know that. I think one would have to be a fool not to address the problems of South Africa. I think one would be losing one’s sense of responsibility before history if one did not respond to the challenges of our time, and I think that this Government is seriously attempting to do just that.

As far as this Budget is concerned half of the hon member’s speech was addressed across the floor to the hon the Minister of Law and Order. When one looks at the Budget one sees that it has made provision to increase and improve the wherewithal of the police so that they are better able to respond to the circumstances they find themselves in.

I want to say to that hon member that I agree with him, and also with the hon member for Yeoville who in his opening address said that the great challenge facing this country is to get moderate and sensible people together to find common ground under a set of certain overarching values in order to heal and to bridge the deep divisions which exist in our society, born of our history, born of our demography, born of our geography, and so on. The reality is that this Budget attempts to address all of those problems insofar as it makes the wherewithal available to deal with those problems. However, to think that we can deal with them by using slogans I think is not only wrong but I also think the hon member’s speech was very superficial as far as that is concerned. He gave us no solution. He comes to us and tells us that we have no solution but he gives us no alternative. That is the great problem of this country as all serious people know. We know what values we stand for, we know how we want to extend democracy, how we want to expand the freedoms in this country, how we want to expand the equality of opportunity in this country, and how we want to live under a legal framework that civilised men hold dear—we know all those things. [Interjections.] However, to achieve them is more difficult. We on this continent have no single example that we can follow on which to base that which we need to do. The light that we have is limited and we have to move forward cautiously in the light that we have so as not to go down the slippery slope like the other countries in Africa have done.

I agree with many of the things that the hon member for Edenvale said yesterday. Many of the things that he said we have been saying ourselves. Many of the things that he said we must address ourselves to, we are addressing anyway. He made a few remarks on which I want to comment. On the issue of privatisation he said that we had done nothing and that he only hears rhetoric from us.

The reality is that he knows that we have privatised Sasol in a massive privatisation effort. He knows that some of the Iscor companies have been sold off. He knows also that the occupier buy-out which is taking place of 80% of the housing stock that was in public ownership is proceeding apace— that is a massive privatisation effort. He knows about the work of the National Transport Policy Study Committee and what is resulting from that. He knows about moves already made on a user charge basis and other structural reforms and deregulation which are being addressed by the transport authorities. He has also seen the advent of toll roads. For him therefore to make the remark that privatisation means nothing, when the State President has appointed a special ministry to look after this whole effort of privatisation and when hon members knows the kind of attention privatisation is getting, I think is not worthy of the economic debate.

He talked about “crowding out”—that the Government was spending too much of the overall capital in South Africa. We know that and the hon the Minister has addressed himself to that very problem. He has addressed that problem in his Budget and has done so many times in public addresses throughout the country over the past months. It was with that reason in mind that the Government limited borrowing and it was with that in mind that the hon the Minister specifically said that he was doing this not to drive up interest rates and in order not to crowd out the private sector so that there is access to funds at reasonable interest rates for the more productive use of our capital resources. We know that that is one of the most important realities that we in this country have to face. We have good entrepreneurs; we have enough land; and we have labour in abundance. However, what we do not have is capital in abundance. We have a country with massive demands, massive aspirations and enormous development needs, and we have limited access to capital from abroad and to what we can borrow internally. The result is that we in South Africa—not only the Government but the private sector as well—have to address ourselves to the problem so as to use our scarce capital resources as carefully and as wisely as possible.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? We talk of the productivity of labour. I am not sure of the exact figures but the productivity of capital in this country has declined. Is a study being done to try to improve the productivity of capital in South Africa?

Absolutely. The Escom study was based on the very question that the hon member is posing. If the hon member has read the De Villiers Report he will know that that was the cardinal issue which the De Villiers Report addressed. We are doing the same for the SATS. As the hon member knows, Dr Wim de Villiers is looking into that at the moment.

What about other sectors?

Other departments are being looked at. In his speech the hon the Minister raised the question of the new committee that he is forming—he will have more to say about it later—consisting of some of the most skilful people in the country. I feel they will also have the support of the business community as a whole. They will come in to assess on a zero-based budgeting basis all of the departments of State. The process will obviously take time, but ultimately we hope that they will also address themselves to the question of using all of our resources in an appropriate way. It is vital that we do so, not only for the Government but also for the private sector.

That hon member will know how many factories there are in South Africa that are housed in magnificent buildings and that have magnificent machines but are running on only one shift a day. There is no way in which this country can compete if that is how we are going to use our capital resources. This applies not only to the Government sector but to our country as a whole.

That is why one is so encouraged by the management buy-outs that are taking place at the moment. Conglomerates with inefficient legs are selling them to the management. I feel that is vital to achieve greater efficiency also in the private sector.

The hon member for Waterkloof also spoke about the use of capital, more specifically about venture capital, in his fine speech of yesterday. One is encouraged by the fact that a company like Southern Life now has a division investigating venture capital projects. They have done so very successfully. One hopes that other life insurance companies will follow suit and address themselves more to Greenfields operations and venture capital projects in our country.

The hon member for Edenvale made a few other statements, of which some were true and some not. He said that direct taxation had increased as a proportion of State Revenue and he gave the figure of 8,52% for 1985-86 and 10,67% for the year 1986-87. That is true but what the hon member did not say was that we know this and have therefore appointed the Margo Commission. That is why we assembled the best taxation brains possible in the country and asked them as a matter of urgency to address not only one aspect of our taxation structure but our entire taxation structure.

That hon member and any sensible person knows that our taxation structure is out of date and needs reviewing. One cannot tinker with it. That has been a major constraint upon the hon the Minister of Finance. I would say that the Budget is a miracle, given the circumstances in which the country finds itself and given the fact that the hon the Minister was constrained and could not move on the tax front to the extent that he might have wanted to move for the reason that the whole tax structure of our country is currently being re-examined. Hopefully we will be able to have a new look in the next year or two at the whole matter of taxation.

The hon member referred to the tax base. If I am not mistaken I think that the hon member for Constantia mentioned that as well. He analysed four Budgets of the past. He said that the Smuts’ Budget was 14,4% of the previous year’s GDP. He said that in 1986 the Budget is 31,5% of last year’s GDP. The hon member said that this illustrated retrogression. Has that hon member ever looked at the increase in the percentage of state expenditure of the GDP in the Western industrial countries that he holds out as examples for us to follow? They have gone far beyond us in this respect and they are trying to withdraw from that situation; hence Thatcherism and Reagonomics; hence what is happening in Germany and what Chirac is trying to do now in France; hence what we are doing in our country now, such as the policy of privatisation, the legislation which my hon colleague is going to introduce in regard to competition, and all the major reviews and the tremendous reforms that are taking place. That hon member comes along and says that what we need is a plan!

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon Deputy Minister a question?

I shall take the question a little later, Mr Speaker.

He says we need a plan, but we do have a plan. Has the hon member not read the White Paper on industrialisation in South Africa and seen the kinds of people who have contributed to that document over the years? Does he not realise that it addresses fundamentally the fact that we should not lean too heavily on mining production and that we should move more towards manufacturing and the export of manufactured goods? The Government is dealing with that, and the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry has a commission under the chairmanship of Dr Kleu looking at further possible refinements in order to promote our exports. Many of the criticisms expressed by hon members are valid, but what they do not say is that we are addressing those problems and have been, in some cases, for years. By standing here and complaining about problems and protesting about what has happened, hon members give the impression that we are just allowing the situation to develop without doing something about it. This is simply not true. I shall now take the question of the hon member for Walmer.

Mr Speaker, would the hon the Deputy Minister tell us which of the Western countries uses 25% or 30% of its GDP as Government expenditure?

Mr Speaker, I will get those figures for the hon member. They are in my office and I have looked at them, but I do not have them here. They are freely available. Many Western countries spend over 50%.

Of the GDP?

Yes, of the GDP. I will give the hon member the statistics later.

As usual, the hon member for Paarl made a very fine speech. We are used to the fact that he is an expert in the fields on which he speaks. There is, however, one point on which I have to take issue with him. He complimented us on getting rid of the surcharge on books, but then he went further, if I am not mistaken, and said that we should, perhaps, exempt books from GST as well. We would find it extremely difficult to accede to that request. One of the reasons why we have such a fundamental problem in our whole tax structure, as the hon member knows, is that there are so many distortions. Some people in our country are paying too much tax and some too little. This happens because our tax net leaks like a sieve. It would be better for us to have lower rates with no exclusions, or as few as possible, than for us to look for one exclusion after the other. If we had to grant the request regarding books tomorrow, that promissory note would then have to be applied also to baby clothes, canned foods …

To sugar!

… to sugar, ethical medicines and many other commodities the next day. We thank the hon member for his support and accolades, but we find it very difficult to accede to his request.

I also want to take issue with the hon member for Sunnyside. What he says is, in a sense, perfectly true. He says the White taxpayers pay x and Black taxpayers pay y, but because expenditure on Blacks is a certain amount, say y plus, therefore the White taxpayers are being bled white to fund other people in our country. Was that not the gravamen of his charge? When one looks at the figures, he is correct, but I want to say to that hon member that the arguments he uses are exactly the same arguments the ANC use. They use them slightly differently. They come along and say this country was built with Black sweat, but the Whites have skimmed off the wealth of this country. Hon members have heard that, but it is wrong.

You are using their argument.

No, I am not, I am just saying what their argument is. I disagree profoundly with their argument.

Do you agree with me?

I also disagree profoundly with the hon member for Sunnyside—if he will forgive me—for the reason that, strictly speaking, there is no White tax base. This country has been built by collective action. There is not a farm, a so-called White-owned factory or a mine in South Africa that can function without the contribution of people of colour. Therefore the general wealth of South Africa or the final tax cake of South Africa as it is baked, is the result of a team effort by all South Africans.

I am not suggesting that people should be bled white by taxes. Nobody, Black or White, should be taxed disproportionately. I do not think an entrepreneur must be so taxed that one taxes his incentive to produce. That is why the hon the Minister of Finance has reduced the marginal rate of tax to 47,5%. He has also reduced taxation right across the curve. That is why the hon the Minister has given the taxation which he took by way of perks tax back to the taxpayer. That is why the hon the Minister has been criticised by some people for doing too little for people of colour. However, that hon member criticised him for doing too much.

The hon the Minister has had to strike a balance between not taxing the entrepreneur on the one hand—giving people just rewards for the risks taken in the short term—and on the other hand looking at the long-term needs of our country which has to be developed as a wealth-producing country so that we can produce greater wealth for all the people of this country. One can only do that if one makes long-term investments in education, in training and in upgrading living conditions so as to break poverty cycles which make it impossible for people to contribute. Equal opportunities must also be created and policies of affirmative action must be provided where necessary so as to upgrade people and help them so that they can take their place and earn a decent living for themselves so that they are not a burden on the State or any kind of taxpayer, whether he is White or Black or Brown. So, I think the remarks of that hon member are simplistic when he talks about White taxes and Black taxes. There is one economy, not only in South Africa but also in Southern Africa. All of us are interdependent and we have to keep that in mind. In a national Budget of this kind the hon the Minister has thus to address himself to the needs of all the population groups of this country.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he can tell us what would happen in this country if we mechanised the factories to a greater extent and used machinery instead of labour? Would it not be more fair if the taxes paid by the different population groups were spent on them and used for their needs?

Mr Chairman, it is with tears in my eyes that I hear the hon member’s question, but it is such a convoluted question that there is no answer to it. The reality is that different companies have different criteria for profitability. For some it pays to mechanise and for others it pays better to use labour. It depends on what is the most appropriate equation for a particular company. The only thing is that the tax base is of course important, because one cannot allow one’s tax base to dictate to a company as to whether or not it should overcapitalise its plant. Farmers, for example, can write off their equipment in the first year of purchase of that equipment, and that leads to distortion. However, whether to mechanise or not is an individual decision which individual companies must take in the light of the competitive circumstances they find themselves in. I would say that, in a country such as ours, if there is a bias at all, within the constraints of being competitive one should try to utilise labour to the maximum possible extent because that does not cost us foreign exchange in terms of importing capital goods, and something over 80% of the import bill of this country is for the importation of capital goods. I also think it would be better to use those machines more productively by putting another shift on the same machine thus using more labour rather than increasing the number of machines and running them on one shift per day.

Mr Speaker, I want to conclude by quoting what the hon the Minister of Finance had to say about this Budget, which I think is a brilliant document, given the circumstances and the background in which he made it. The hon the Minister said the following:

Thus he has tried to stimulate the economy moderately, to strike a balance. I think he has been impressive in that regard. He seeks to make it possible to move towards equality of opportunity for all of the people of this country, and to make a long-term investment in the future of this country. It is no good our thinking that we can solve the problems of this country only by slogans, quick fixes, fancy constitutions or statements of intent. Ours is a complex society and this society has to address all of its problems at every interface of society simultaneously, whether it is in agriculture or in mining or in industry or wherever we find ourselves. At every interface of society this country has to address the problems of our country, to modernise our country and to take us to new heights, not only new heights economically but also in other areas that must form the basis of a sustainable democracy in the interests of ourselves and of our children.

Mr Speaker, the only observation that I should like to make about the speech made by the hon the Deputy Minister is that his knowledge of the population growth and ethnic situation in Southern Africa since the first settlers arrived here is very elementary. He totally underestimates, and has no perspective of the role, the importance and the presence of the Whites, the Europeans in South Africa during the past 300 years or more. It is, however, something we can discuss with the hon the Deputy Minister in another debate.

The CP rejects this Budget because it seeks amongst other things to bring about power-sharing with Blacks in South Africa. The CP rejects power-sharing in this country because it will inevitably lead to conflict and slaughter. We reject power-sharing because the CP stands for the self-determination of peoples. We stand for the division of power and for partition because we want to avoid bloodshed in South Africa. We attach great value to human lives in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Oh well, I must say I have read the nice part. I now want to ask the hon Chief Whip of Parliament whether he agrees with what I said, namely that power-sharing with Blacks in South Africa, will cause bloodshed.

No. [Interjections.]

He does not agree with it? [Interjections.] The hon Chief Whip of Parliament says he does not agree with it, but I should now like to quote to him what one of his colleagues said:

The hon member I am quoting was referring to the PFP. The hon member went on to say:

I wonder who said that?

The hon member then said:

When those words were said, I was still a member of the old National Party. [Interjections.] That was our considered standpoint. These words were spoken by the hon member for Benoni. [Interjections.] The hon member for Benoni who is now, it appears to me, the Chief Director of Information of the NP, as was also pointed out last night by that propaganda machine of the NP, namely television, said these things nearly five years ago. [Interjections.] Now they have turned right round in their tracks and stand for power-sharing with Blacks in South Africa, with the inevitable consequences. [Interjections.]

The NP Government wants to bring integration and conflict to South Africa, as well as the inundation of the Whites and other peoples of small numerical strength in South Africa. I should like to ask those hon members whether I am correct in saying that they want to bring those things about in South Africa, by way of power-sharing with the Blacks. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—he is usually quite loquacious—is very quiet at the moment. [Interjections.]

I shall also be speaking.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that I would be very glad if he were to speak.

It has been said and not only said but written as well, with the signature of Mr P W Botha affixed to it. He said that in order to resolve South Africa’s population situation, one must allow each of the various Black peoples to acquire their own sovereign state. If one does not do that in South Africa—in other words if one applies the alternative, namely power-sharing with Blacks, what does one have then? The alternative is integration, conflict and the swamping of the Whites and other minority groups.

Read point four as well, which refers to what Dr Treurnicht said about the Coloureds. [Interjections.]

That hon the Minister must go back to the University of Pretoria and go and tell the students about the incomprehensible untruth which he told at Tukkies in 1982. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister wants us to approve this Budget. Who must we believe in South Africa? Who must we as opposition parties believe? Must we believe P W Botha—number one—he who five years ago said that power-sharing with Blacks would bring destruction and conflict in its wake? Must we on the other hand believe what he said in his second statement:

You are reading that piece of paper to pieces, Daan. [Interjections.]

Yes, I am reading it to pieces. I want to tell that hon member that we will read the NP to pieces. [Interjections.] I should like to tell the hon member that when we were thrown out of the NP because we stood by the principles of the NP, we said that we would go from one platform to another in order to bring these things to people’s attention. The hon member for Heilbron who is sitting here and laughing does not even want Coloureds to walk on his veranda, yet they can join his Cabinet. [Interjections.]

The State President says: “Ek is nie van plan om daar op te hou nie”. Then he says further:

Those are presented to us as the facts. The hon member for Bloemfontein North, who unfortunately is not present here this afternoon … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan should not interrupt the hon member for Rissik so persistently. [Interjections.]

Here the NP—and the State President whom we must believe because he affixed his signature to this say: “Here are the facts”. The hon member for Bloemfontein North who was the chief information officer for the NP also came to light with a document which he wrote in which he said: “Here are the facts”. At the time criticism was levelled by the HNP. At that stage the HNP said that the NP was moving in a liberal direction which would slowly but surely soften up our people for change and surrender. We, the members of the CP sitting here, could quite rightly reply to this standpoint by saying, “It is not true.” But what did the hon member for Bloemfontein North say then? He wrote as follows:

The hon member for Bloemfontein North said those were the facts. This statement was made:

He was referring to the present State President—

The hon member for Bloemfontein North came forward with what he called facts, which he propounded to the people and the poor Free Staters. He also said this:

The State President spelt it out very clearly in his capacity as Prime Minister that the Government did not believe in power-sharing.

Where is your credibility?

What my hon colleague here is saying applies directly to the dilemma we have in South Africa today. We have a Government that we cannot trust. The political schizophrenia which we are dealing with today is one of the problems which the voters of this country are experiencing.

I want to present hon members with a further example. Listen to what the NP told the voters:

[Interjections.] Furthermore it was said …

Just quote the whole passage, please.

I shall quote the whole passage to hon members. [Interjections.] One shot fired at random and that hon member reacts. I quote further:

[Interjections.] I want to come back to the question of political schizophrenia. I should like to say that the hon member …

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, I shall go to Randfontein so that I can talk to that hon member. But I want to ask the hon member whether he dares to go to Randfontein and say these things there.

Who makes states independent?

The hon member for Randfontein came to Parliament five years ago. He told his voters—and put it in writing—that he was implementing the policy of Dr Verwoerd down to the tiniest detail. [Interjections.] It is a shameless situation of deception which we have in South African politics today. [Interjections.] In my opinion the lack of credibility of the NP is exceeded only by their brazenness. I refer to the brazenness which they displayed by placating the NP supporters by saying that the NP was in power and that they would ensure the continued existence of the Whites. [Interjections.] The brazenness does not end there. It is additional brazenness that the ideas and the policy of the NRP and of the PFP has, during the last five years, systematically become part of the political terminology and policy of the NP. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about that.

If the NP wishes to regain, in the smallest measure, the semblance of political reliability, I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning now that they must relinquish the name “National Party”. [Interjections.] I tell you today that tens of thousands of people in our country are being defrauded because the Government uses the name of the National Party, yet implements PFP policy. [Interjections.]

I want to continue, and I say that those hon members suffer from a terrible guilt complex about the non-Whites. I say they ought to have a guilt complex about the hon members of the NRP, the hon member for Houghton, Mr J G N Strauss, Sir de Villiers Graaff and the hon Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Sea Point. [Interjections.] What has the NP been saying all these years about the PFP and the NRP? I have been in this House for 20 years now…

And you have achieved nothing!

Have I achieved nothing? [Interjections.] I want to tell those hon members that when the annals of this age are written one day they will reflect the struggle that was won in South Africa—the struggle of a lot of unreliable people who hijacked the NP, or a small group of men and women who adhered to the old principles. [Interjections.]

The imitators.

Yes, the imitators. If the NP want to rid themselves of that blot of shamelessness, I should like to suggest that they write a letter to the PFP apologising for the things that they have said about that party over many years. The same applies to the NRP. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the hon the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Finance is asking us to vote in favour of his Budget but surely that hon Minister is one of the new left wingers, the “new wave” Nats in the National Party. Surely he knows it. [Interjections.] That hon Minister was one of the ringleaders in 1978 who voted for Advocate Pik Botha. Surely he knows that they voted against Minister P W Botha at the time.

He would not have voted for a matriculant at the time. [Interjections.]

Yes, and today I maintain that the NP is divided as seldom before. Let the hon Minister tell us today whether he supports Advocate Pik Botha in his statement that a Black man could under certain circumstances become president of this country.

I made a statement in this regard in this House.

Say it here. Does the hon Minister reject him? The hon the Minister rejects him in public, but behind his back the Minister is ousting the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

You are being absurd!

We have in South Africa a Government that has lost its credibility and which is shamelessly misleading the voters of this country. Fortunately a new, strong, and trustworthy old nationalism is arising in this country. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to hold an election. In this amendment we request the hon Minister to hold an election. Leave here as soon as possible—let us have an election in the country and let us ask for a mandate for what the Whites in this southern land want.

26 May.

Mr Speaker, this hon Minister would not dare. [Interjections.]

Especially not the little fellow from Vereeniging.

In this country a new nationalism is arising, based on the old standpoints and the old values. As I stand here I have no doubt in my heart that the right wing, the conservatives, will form the government of this country at the next election. [Interjections.] Only then will we have the peace, security and prosperity which will cause this country to flourish for many centuries. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I thought at the start that the hon member for Rissik was going to discuss finance. However, he started giving a clear exposition of his political convictions. Towards the end it seemed to me as if he felt very strongly about the question of his request to the Government to call a new election.

I should like to ask the hon member for Rissik as he is sitting there, and in the spirit of the speech which he made, whether he really feels so strongly about an election being called to test the people and the country. [Interjections.] That being the case, why does he not make use of the option open to him? If the hon member really feels so strongly about it, what could prevent him from handing in his resignation to the Speaker today and fighting in Rissik? [Interjections.] We have after all simplified the situation for the hon member now; he does after all feel very strongly about it. This offers him an honest solution.

If I challenge you, will you accept it?

We are not discussing challenges; I was telling the hon member he had a very simple alternative—he has his own constituency, does he not? We are not playing games with each other, surely. The hon member after all has the courage of his conviction and he could do it very easily.

Will everyone in the House resign? [Interjections.]

But I did not ask if the hon member felt strongly about my constituency or about any other constituency. [Interjections.] While I was listening to the hon member for Rissik, I thought that what this amounted to was that we could never meet each other halfway with this kind of reasoning. We are worlds apart, because as history unfolds, and if one day in the future we look back in history to our present position, we shall all have to give an account of whether we did everything possible to put out the flames in this country. I am convinced that this Government is obliged to do everything possible for the purpose … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Vasco may just as well keep quiet for a while so that we can hear how long these reciprocal challenges across the floor of this House are going to continue. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Allow me, Sir, to put it this way. One gets the impression that while we are trying to steal all kinds of political marches on each other about what we said yesterday and what we ought to have said the day before, the present situation is in truth being ignored. We know that the situation in South Africa is changing so rapidly that the adjustments …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon Chief Whip of Parliament say that I stole my constituency?

Yes, of course!

But you did, did you not! [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon Chief Whip of Parliament mean by those words?

Mr Speaker, I meant the hon member for Kuruman won his constituency under a different banner to the present one.

That is not true! [Interjections.]

But of course it is true! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Vasco may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Every hon member of this House was lawfully elected to be here, and I think that to make the allegation that one of the hon members of this House stole his seat, is a reflection on the dignity of the House itself. [Interjections.] It is also, I think, Mr Speaker, a reflection on the dignity and integrity of hon members of this House.

But surely you did. [Interjections.]

Order! I am quite inclined to rule that the word “steal” was being used between quotation marks in this case. I want to make it very clear, however, that when we consider that the hon member for Kuruman was lawfully elected as a member of this House during the last election, the word “steal” should in my opinion be withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, if this is your ruling, I withdraw the word.

Order! The hon member for Vasco may proceed.

Mr Speaker, before I discuss the Appropriation itself, I should like to make use of the opportunity this afternoon to confirm my full confidence and faith in the capitalistic system and in the system of free enterprise. Along with that I should also like to reject completely the disinvestment campaign that was launched recently, particularly through the effort of Bishop Desmond Tutu.

Incidentally, when we take note of who this foremost disciple in the campaign for disinvestment in South Africa actually is, it is of course necessary that we pause a while at certain aspects concerning his curriculum vitae. This is done partly to determine if he really has the right to speak about disinvestment in South Africa. The so-called Right Reverend Desmond Tutu was born in 1931 in Klerksdorp. He obtained a BA degree from Unisa. Now it is of course interesting to note that he obtained a BA degree from a university which liaises more closely with the Government than any other university in the country. He studied at Unisa, but at the same time rejects the educational systems in this country. We also note that he married in 1955. In 1961 he went to London, where he remained until approximately 1975. Throughout his stay in England he undertook further studies, also doing certain jobs in America in the intervening periods. We should also take due note of the fact that he did not bring his children back to South Africa with him. They have therefore not been educated in this country. Naturally this once again amounts to a rejection of the educational systems of South Africa. He therefore only had himself as an example, but had no experience of his own children being part of this system.

This is not all, however, Sir. He lived abroad for many years in the free capitalistic spirit and atmosphere of Britain and the USA, and then he returned to South Africa, where four years later, in 1979, he unequivically rejected the system of capitalism. As a mature adult he spent more than 14 years in two completely free capitalistic countries, but nonetheless says the following four years after his return to South Africa, and I quote him:

This is what Bishop Desmond Tutu said on 25 March 1979. The question which immediately arises is of course which capitalistic system it is that this gentleman now rejects. He does not say that it is the South African system which he rejects. He says he rejects capitalism. Most of his experience of capitalism was not gained in South Africa. He experienced capitalism in the supposedly free and wonderful parts of England and America. Yet he rejects it. He cannot stand it; he hates it.

Now a question arises: What influence did those countries have on him? What effect did they have on him that he, after he received most of his experience of capitalism in those countries, arrives here and says “I hate capitalism. I am a confirmed, resolute socialist.”? Now if he admits and on top of it states that he is a socialist, surely he is not only rejecting the apartheid system which he supposedly rejects here; he then rejects the whole capitalistic system in this country, does he not. He is prepared to enjoy the advantage of it. He is prepared to accept disinvestment. He is prepared to say that those who are going to suffer as a result of disinvestment must reject capitalism. He states this while being fully aware that he himself would not suffer any loss and that he would not forfeit one meal. The fact that he in any case does not believe in the capitalistic system, makes no difference to him. That is why I made the statement that this honourable gentleman who enjoys the advantage of this system, does not have the right to propagate disinvestment because he does not do so honestly. He does it under the guise of getting rid of the free capitalistic system in South Africa. He ought to be ashamed of himself because he does not do so honestly, and he does not protect the interests of the people whose interests he should be protecting.

I should like to return to the debate, and in doing so, to the Budget itself. I am pleased to say that the hon the Minister deserves the utmost respect for the Appropriation, the second one he has presented here. If one looks at the media and the private sector, one sees that from all quarters he has received nothing but praise. On the other hand, the entire opposition has rejected the Appropriation. We on this side of the House, however, have to restrain ourselves from congratulating him too much. I thank him sincerely for certain things which he has built into this Budget. I quote the aim of one of the programmes:

I want to warmly congratulate him on the helping hand he has extended in regard to unemployment, and on the compassionate way in which he deals with the question of parity and backlogs.

If I must limit myself to one factor of the Appropriation, I limit myself to the job he has set himself—I am very grateful for it—of improving and reorganising the productivity of the Public Service. At the same time as thanking him, let me also ask if in the future when we institute a measure or a programme, we could not look if there is perhaps another programme which we could cancel or exclude. It is after all a known fact that in the situation where we are at present dealing with the rationalisation of the Public Service, we have not had the necessary rationalisation of personnel. This I think is something we have to accept in principle.

If I may make just one final remark, let me say that there are a few things which we could perhaps do better than we have done them in the past. Then we would perhaps also be viewed in a more favourable light by the man on the street. Firstly, it is my wish that the hon the Minister’s Budget should be a success; but the old adage goes: “The proof of the pudding lies in the eating.” We shall therefore only be able to determine the success of this Budget within six or nine months. In the meantime I think it is absolutely essential for the central financial control to rest with the hon the Minister himself. In this way he will not make the mistakes in regard to which the hon member for Lichtenburg made certain allegations yesterday. I think it is essential that the entire spectrum of State expenditure be placed under the control of the hon the Minister.

Let us privatise the unnecessary. But let the remainder which is not being privatised fall under the control of the Minister of Finance. While thanking the hon the Minister, let me say that they should be subject to the thorough investigation of the Auditor-General as well. I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister on the appointment of Dr Joop de Loor and ask that this department now be extended to become a real control factor of all departments and I include the Department of Defence and all State corporations. If one looks at how much development is being initiated by the State these days, I think that this is also one department that will have to be watched.

Mr Chairman, there is one aspect of the speech of the hon member for Vasco that I want to refer to. He made reference to Bishop Tutu’s statements and I want to make it clear that, as an Anglican, and I know that I speak for many Anglicans, I dissociate myself entirely from the sentiments of the Bishop and the statements that have been made by him. [Interjections.] I want to make it clear also that there are many Anglicans who feel completely let down by the statements of Bishop Tutu, and his utterings have tended to alienate many parishioners of his Church.

We have heard a great deal of discussion during this debate in regard to the credibility or otherwise of the Budget. I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague the hon member for Umbilo when he clearly pointed out that in actual fact the Budget which on the surface appears to be reasonable is in many respects not sufficient to restore the confidence that is so vitally needed to stimulate the economy of this country and also in the efforts that are being made to maintain law and order. Time will tell whether the estimates bear any relevance, and I think we all hope and pray that our misgivings are not going to be as accurate as we have reason to feel they are.

The text of my speech is going to be directed mainly to one specific issue. I want to raise the question of land consolidation, which has for years been a highly emotional matter. It has been highly controversial and, above all, it has been highly disruptive of the lives of many South Africans. I want to make it clear that the NRP feel that the time has come to call a halt to the implementation of further consolidation proposals that fall outside the terms of agreement with existing independent and self-governing states. Furthermore we feel that the functions of the commission that has been appointed to investigate consolidation should be suspended pending further discussions and decisions with the self-governing states concerned.

The realities of the present political situation do indeed substantiate the view of the State President that apartheid is an outmoded concept. We subscribe to this fully. Therefore if one accepts this theory it becomes obvious that future large-scale consolidation becomes redundant and meaningless. This is specifically relevant by virtue of the fact that the land allocations which were inscribed into the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, have been met in full.

We furthermore support and welcome the fact that the Government has at last acknowledged that the attainment of self-governing status is no longer regarded as a commitment to the acceptance of full independence. This is particularly relevant in the case of Natal where Chief Minister Buthelezi has repeatedly stated that he will not accept independent status for kwaZulu. May I point out that the vast majority of other race groups support this concept. The fact that kwaZulu comprises some 42 different portions throughout the province of Natal highlights the importance of a regional solution being found at second-tier level to administer the province as a whole.

It is for this reason that the importance of the Natal/kwaZulu Indaba should not be underestimated or belittled in any way by Government. Cognisance must also be taken of the views expressed by Chief Minister Buthelezi that he rejects the proposals made by the Commission for Co-operation relative to the consolidation of kwaZulu. It would appear that his decision has been motivated largely by the fact that his government was not party to the discussions leading up to the proposals.

When we examine other aspects that led to his decision we find that there has also been no follow-up regarding the improvement of the infrastructure in the settlement areas that have already been created. Furthermore, while appreciating the steps that are now being taken to look after farms held by the SADT through its corporation, we must not lose sight of the fact that, until recently, many erstwhile highly productive farming units were allowed to stand unoccupied because no means existed whereby it was possible to develop the potential of these properties.

The price that the country has paid for consolidation is not solely reflected in the amount said to be in excess of R1 billion paid for land acquisition. The many hidden costs are far in excess of this amount. It is interesting to note that in the Budget of this year the allocation to self-governing states is some R1,5 million.

It is therefore logical that the concept of land being used as a bargaining factor for political reasons is a thing of the past. This country can no longer afford to ignore the realities of accommodating a growing population. Those who see this accommodation as taking place in the rural areas are sorely out of touch with the true situation. The fact that the Government has sounded the death-knell for forced removals and that influx control is likely to fall away means that there will be an ever-increasing movement of people to the urban areas. It is in these areas that provision must be made to accommodate the future population growth of this country.

The recent proposals regarding the consolidation of a part of Natal with Transkei involve several aspects of principle which I feel should be brought to the attention of this House.

I want to refer specifically to the Weza forest area. In this regard, I feel that some definite explanation is necessary. Let me first make it clear that the forestry area of Weza has always been part of Natal and, as such, no historical significance can be attached to its incorporation into Transkei. The proposal ignores previous representations by the people of East Griqualand and the Harding area that the existing corridor between East Griqualand and the coast remain in its present form. If accepted by the Cabinet, this recommendation will mean that the future of the direct link between East Griqualand and the coast will be placed in jeopardy.

Plans to allocate additional land to independent states outside the terms of the original agreements between the RSA and those independent states also raises an issue on which clarification is necessary. I would like to pose a question to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. At what stage can consolidation proposals be considered final? In other words, does he foresee that there will be a chipping away of White-owned and State-owned land on an ongoing basis until the demands of independent states have been met?

The Weza issue has far-reaching implications, and that is why I have raised it in this debate. I also want to point out that the incorporation of the Weza area into Transkei can bring into being a confrontation between those Zulus who live and work in the vicinity and the Pondos of Transkei. I would like to ask further if one could justly assume that this proposal is the result of pressure from other Government departments. Furthermore—I am glad to see the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism is here—are State-owned forestry areas now going to be regarded as the sacrificial lamb when it comes to the allocation of land to national states?

Let me repeat finally that a proposal of this nature can only be described as crazy and irresponsible, in that it will be detrimental to the whole of the East Griqualand region and is likely to be a destructive factor in maintaining the stable situation that presently exists.

Finally, and in all sincerity, I would like to say that my comments here are not in any way meant to detract from the hard work that the hon members for Ermelo and Vryheid and their commission have put into the whole question of consolidation. I respect and understand the tremendous commitment they have had to arrive at a satisfactory situation as far as they are concerned. The impression one gains, however, is that they are being subjected to pressures from above.

Mr Chairman, I would like at the outset to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his comments about the members of the commission. We know that this hon member is sincere and always makes a rather concerned and constructive contribution to the debates in this House. Concerning his reference to Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s rejection of independence for kwaZulu, I would like to assure him that the State President and this Government do not even consider forcing such status upon him. I think the State President has made that very clear indeed. As far as the Natal/kwaZulu Indaba is concerned, I want to assure him that hon members on these benches will not belittle what is going on in Natal at the present time. The fact that the chairman of the NP in Natal is leading a delegation of observers to that indaba is indicative of the fact that we do pay it its due respect. For myself, I sincerely hope that some very productive recommendations will come out of that particular indaba.

I listened with interest to the debate on the Budget, and I cannot help but feel disappointed with the efficacy of the various opposition parties’ reasoning, especially when it comes to the reasons for our present economic position. In fact, if one studies the speeches, one finds that the PFP and the CP arguments contradicts one another totally. The second leg of the hon member for Yeoville’s amendment places the blame for our present economic position on Government policy, and especially on the policy of apartheid.

The hon member for Edenvale made what I should like to describe as a very good contribution to this debate yesterday. He showed that up to 1970 the South African economy had done well but, since then, that economic growth had fallen behind population growth. I agree with him that this means that the average standard of living of all South Africans is progressively being eroded. I agree with him and I accept the statistics he quoted, but I believe that he must concede that this has happened during a decade in which this Government has taken positive steps to move away from apartheid. I know that that hon member is a fair-minded person, and I am sure that he will concede that point too. However, he must also concede that during the 1960s we experienced one of the greatest economic growth periods in our history. Yet, this was the period when the policy of apartheid was at its peak. So, I put it to the hon member: Does this mean that the hon member for Lichtenburg was correct when he stated yesterday that the moment the Government moved away from apartheid we began to experience a recession? The hon member shakes his head, and I agree with him entirely. Of course the hon member for Lichtenburg’s comments are not correct. Such statements are purely political rhetoric and, may I say, rather simplistic rhetoric at that.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

We are very short of time, but if I have time afterwards I shall answer the hon member’s question.

The hon member for Constantia also led the cry that the cost of apartheid is incalculable. Yet he repeatedly asked the question: “Where is reform?” In fact, he cried out: “Where is reform?” He then went on to compare the 1947 Budget and the 1986 Budget as a percentage of the GDP for the previous year. He showed that the percentage rose from 14,4% of GDP in 1947 to 31,5% in this Budget, which he said was too high. I want to say at the outset that I agree with that hon member that it is too high, but in all fairness he should have compared the two budgets more honestly. He should have compared the costs of social services in 1947 with those of today. He should have compared the money which was spent on Black education then with the enormous growth in that expenditure that there has been in recent years. He should have compared the money spent on social pensions for all population groups in 1947 with the money spent on them today. He should also have taken into consideration the cost of achieving wage and salary parity for all groups for which he is always crying. He should have taken into account the cost of Black housing and township upliftment. These costs which are in this Budget are the costs of reform. This is what South Africa is presently paying for. I firmly believe that the time has come to stop beating about the bush and start calling a spade a spade. He and the entire PFP, along with organised industry and commerce, are continually calling for reform. In fact, the FCI has issued a charter for reform, and may I say that it is a very good document. I have read it through completely. [Interjections.] The Press are always calling for reform. Everybody, including the State President and hon members of this party are all calling for reform. The exception is perhaps the members of the HNP and the CP.

However, how many of us have considered the cost of reform? How many have considered the structural changes required in our economy? How many hon members have considered the changes we must have in our own lifestyle? How many hon members have considered the changes we must make in our own personal priorities in order to bring about this reform which we need because we want to avoid a revolution in this country?

I believe that the Government has accepted these realities in drawing up this Budget. The growth in the money supply is at present being properly controlled. In real terms the hon the Minister has actually reduced Government spending. We have heard the CP say that the Agriculture Vote has been cut, and they are making tremendous political capital out of that fact. Yet the Education and Training Vote has increased by nearly 26% to R1,2 billion. I put it to the hon member for Constantia that that is almost the total budget of the 1974 era. The CP are also making political capital out of that fact because they do not believe that Blacks should have education.

This is reform that is taking place. What about the R293 million being voted for retraining Blacks and for creating job opportunities, and the R320 million provided for in the Budget for township upliftment? Let us be honest and accept the facts. Job reservation which was old apartheid policy is a thing of the past. That is reform. The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act is a thing of the past. That is reform in South Africa. Influx control and the hated pass laws will shortly be a thing of the past. That is reform taking place in South Africa. We know that the President’s Council is reviewing the Slums Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act, and we hope that these will be reformed in the very near future. [Interjections.] For goodness sake, surely this is reform in a truly meaningful and realistic form that is taking place in South Africa? [Interjections.] It is taking place in an evolutionary manner, which is the way it should happen.

In the few minutes that are left to me I would like to return to the most urgent problem which I believe is facing South Africa, and that is the lack of real economic growth. In my view the hon member for Umbilo hit the nail on the head yesterday when he said we must face the reality that the present economic cake is just not big enough to meet the needs and aspirations of all our people at this stage, and I will add, “of reform”. The hon member for Umbilo said the real answer to our problem is to enlarge the cake, to enlarge the GDP. The hon member for Edenvale correctly revealed yesterday that our economic decline started more than 10 years ago in the early 1970s. That was also, may I say, when inflation took off and ended up in double figures. I see the hon member for Edenvale agrees with me. I therefore put the question to him: What occurred at that time to cause these things to happen? That is what we must look at. The cause of inflation has been correctly defined as “too much money chasing too few goods”. Inflation occurs when the money supply is increased at a rate greater than the rate of increase in the value of real goods being produced. That is basic. I submit that our present inflation and our present economic decline have their roots in the industrial unrest of the early 1970s.

I remember this period very well because I was managing a company which had in excess of 3 000 employees. At that time the media were full of stories about labour unrest. Durban was riddled with strikes. The media ran report after report about university studies which were being conducted which showed that most workers were living below the breadline. I am sure hon members remember that period. I remember receiving a circular from the Natal Employers’ Association urging employers to increase wages. What was the response? Entire industries boosted wages by 20% per annum. The next year, wages rose by 25%, with no commensurate increase in the output of goods. Certainly, I will concede to hon members that many of our workers were not earning a decent wage at that time. However, to boost wages and salaries willy-nilly, and to call upon the Government to haphazardly increase the money supply—which industry did—without any regard for real values, had inevitably to lead to inflation and economic decline.

Real improvements in the standard of living of a nation and of an individual can only come about—I repeat, can only come about—as a result of an increase in the real wealth of a country. Managements must certainly understand this and labour unions, if they do not understand it, should be made to understand.

In the 1970s, we pushed wages upwards without any consideration for productivity. I say we were all to blame at that stage. I would like to submit that our industrial and commercial communities leave a great deal to be desired. They are always calling upon this Government to reform. I say both management and organised labour must search their own souls and hearts and minds in this matter. The Federated Chamber of Industries may well have drawn up a charter for political reform. May I humbly suggest to them, however, that what they and organised labour should be looking at today, is themselves and the way they are operating. They should draw up a charter for their own economic reform aimed at real economic growth.

To substantiate what I have said, I have here a document pertaining to recent research work done by the National Productivity Institute. I put it to hon members of the opposition that they should consider these facts. I want to quote from a table of output per hour in manufacturing, for the period 1970 to 1984, using the year 1970 as a base line of 100.

South Africa’s productivity output per hour increased from 100 in 1970 to 132,5 in 1984. Japan’s increase in productivity output per hour rose over the same period from 100 to 274,8—more than double. Let us look at what happened to wages in those two countries. In South Africa, the indices of labour compensation in manufacturing on the same basis increased from 100 in 1970 to 626,7 in 1984. That represents a 626% increase. In Japan, the increase was from 100 to 430. What does this mean? It means that whilst our productivity lagged behind that of our international competitors, we pushed up wages twice as fast as they did.

Let us look at labour productivity growth in the private sector during this period. I am now going to quote annual average growth rates over the past 14 years. Mining and quarrying had a negative average annual growth rate of minus 1,9% during the entire 14 year period. Electricity, gas and water dropped by 0,8% per annum and construction by 0,2%. Manufacturing went up by 2,2% per annum, commerce by 1,5% and, believe it or not, transport and communication, which is predominantly State-operated organisations, fared the best with an average increase of 2,8% per annum.

Probably more important than anything else—as we have heard today—is the use of capital. This is something I want this Parliament to discuss over and over again this year. The use of capital in South Africa has been atrocious. We have wasted our money as these figures from the NPI clearly show. Capital productivity growth in South Africa has achieved an average annual growth rate of minus 2,7% every year for the past 14 years. Mining and quarrying achieved a negative growth rate in the utilisation of their capital of minus 6,8% per annum. I submit to the hon the Minister of Finance that perhaps their capex allowances are far too high. They are wasting valuable capital in South Africa. Manufacturing achieved a growth rate of minus 2,8% per annum and construction minus 6% per annum. Believe it or not, Government-run transport and communications systems at minus 0,9% per annum again represents one of the best figures.

In conclusion I want to put it to hon members that this Government is doing all in its power to bring about reform in South Africa in an orderly, evolutionary, and responsible manner. The Budget is pointing in that direction. Yet it does not give the private sector and the people outside the right to put all the blame on the Government. When one looks at the figures of their performance one sees that it has been abysmal, and I believe it is about time that they pulled up their socks.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Amanzimtoti asked us whether we had considered the costs of reform. I think the question that he should put is whether the Government has considered the cost of not reforming. In fact, the irony is that reform in the Government’s context means dismantling the policies which they have so assiduously built up over the past 40 odd years. [Interjections.] We are thus in fact making progress by going backwards. Perhaps, when we get back to 1948, we will be able to start going forward and build on really sound economic policies. [Interjections.]

I wish to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon member for Mooi River in which he described consolidation as an outdated policy. I should like to support the hon member for Mooi River by saying that if apartheid is an outmoded policy, then certainly consolidation is similarly an outmoded policy and, at the same time, a waste of good capital and human resources. [Interjections.]

This afternoon I should like to deal with a very specific matter which concerns, among other things, the earning of foreign exchange for South Africa. In the light of disclosures which have been made to me, I wish to determine not only the Government’s response to them but also to seek an explanation from it for its actions in this regard. The matter which I am going to raise is of great importance to those of us who are concerned about our environment and who are of the opinion that a clean and healthy environment is an asset upon which no price can be placed.

A few weeks ago it was brought to my attention, by sources which I regard as entirely reliable, that a South African company which specialises in waste disposal had tendered for and won a contract to dispose of certain hazardous industrial waste from the United States of America. This waste was to be imported into South Africa and stored at the company’s disposal site near Motherwell which is a densely populated Black township outside of Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape. Preparations to receive this waste had allegedly already reached an advanced stage. What is particularly disturbing is an indication that these waste products might also include those of a radioactive nature. It was also alleged that considerable sums of money were involved. This stands to reason because no company would pay heavily to dispose of harmless substances. The amount which a company is willing to pay to someone who is willing to rid it of hazardous waste is directly proportional to the degree of danger involved in handling those substances.

Why, one asks oneself, are the Americans unwilling or even unable to find someone in their own vast country who is prepared to handle this waste cheaper than a South African firm which has to ship it 10 000km? Furthermore, what exactly is the nature of this waste the quantities of which are small enough to make it a viable proposition to ship it that distance but which is so deadly that the Americans do not want it themselves?

It was in order to obtain answers to these questions that I started probing the matter some weeks ago. The hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism denied at that time that any approach had been made to him for permission to import waste products, but the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry confirmed that his department had received an application for what he termed in his answer “unspecified substances”, and that this application was being considered.

Two weeks later, on 2 April, the Director-General of the Department of Trade and Industry issued a statement to the effect that his department had turned down the application for an “unspecified substance”, after this had been referred to the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism. I submit that this statement and this question raise more questions than they answer. I believe the Government owes South Africa an explanation.

Firstly, the hon the Minister will be aware of the nature of international contracting. The company calling for tenders will not award a contract unless it is satisfied that the tenderer can meet certain basic requirements; for example, does the tenderer have the necessary experience; does he have adequate financial and technical resources? Most important of all, does he have the permission of the Government of his country to go ahead with the transaction? I refuse to accept that in a matter as sensitive as the disposal of hazardous waste any reputable company in the United States of America would award a contract to a foreign company without first having satisfied itself that it would not fall foul of import restrictions. The same applies to the tenderer.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question.

Just be quick about it, please; my time is very limited.

Did the hon member say that a contract had been awarded?

My information is that a contract was won by a South African firm, yes.

Mr Chairman, I refuse to accept that in a matter as sensitive as the disposal of hazardous waste that any reputable company would award a contract without first having satisfied himself as I have said. The same goes for a tenderer. He must first satisfy himself that the Government will be sympathetic or will accept the contract which he is tendering for.

The second question concerns the nature of the waste to be disposed of. We are told that an application for the disposal of “unspecified waste” was considered and turned down. This is surely nonsense. What Government department would consider an application without first seeking to determine the nature of that substance? If it was merely “unspecified waste”, how did the department concerned know that it was not perhaps a useful substance, like basic slag, which is a waste product from the steel industry and which can be used as a fertiliser, or fly-ash waste from power stations which can be used in the cement industry. Why are these departments so coy about revealing the nature of the substance? What are they hiding?

Tell us.

Does the Government honestly want us to believe that they allow or disallow the importation of unspecified goods into this country in a purely arbitrary way without first determining their nature? The idea, I submit, is ridiculous.

Why did they refuse?

There are a host of other questions which need to be asked. If we do not get adequate answers from the hon the Minister we will continue pursuing these questions. For example, we will need to be told when the Government first learned of a South African company’s intention to tender for the contract and whether authorisation was given. If there has been any kind of a cover-up in this matter we will expose it, of that the Government can be sure.

In the meantime the hon the Minister of Finance who is responsible for balancing the country’s books can perhaps give us his response and the response of his Government to the generating of foreign exchange in return for making this country the cesspit of the world. Will he give us the assurance that he and his Government will vigorously oppose any move in this direction? We might well need foreign exchange but I submit there is a price which we cannot afford to pay for that foreign exchange, and that price is the health of the nation. Any practice which could threaten our future physical wellbeing must be exposed and opposed.

I challenge the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism to answer the questions which I have raised, and to tell us of his Government’s attitude to the important principles which are implicit in these questions.

You saw the statement that the application was turned down flat!

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Finance is undoubtedly aware of the critical conditions prevailing in certain agricultural sectors, particularly in the financial sphere. Nevertheless, for the record I should like to remind the hon the Minister that between 1981 and 1985 the total agricultural debt rose from R4,5 billion to R10,4 billion. If we also bear in mind that the carry-over debt at agricultural co-operatives rose from R106 million to R1,425 million between 1981 and 1985, we realise in what a tremendous financial dilemma certain sectors of our agricultural industry find themselves at present.

If we also bear in mind that at the end of 1983 summer grain producers only had 7 cents available for every rand of operating obligations, we realise that in the financial sphere it is really late in the day for agriculture in South Africa. During the past three years the real net farming income has dropped to less than half of what it was in 1975.

In certain circles there is the misconception that direct State aid to farmers in distress adds up to an enormous sum of money, which constitutes a significant percentage of the State’s expenditure. At present subsidies add up to less than 1% of the State’s expenditure. State aid to the agricultural industry is considerable, but I maintain that the rest of the national economy must see this in perspective. As far as I am concerned the perspective in which State aid should be seen is that we should recognise agriculture as a strategic industry, and that we must also admit that State aid to other sectors of the economy compares very favourably with State aid to agriculture.

The disastrous financial situation in which certain agricultural sectors find themselves at present may be ascribed in the main to three factors. The first of these is of course the unprecedented drought. The second factor is that certain financial factors, such as the high interest rates payable on borrowed working capital, and of course a high inflation rate, which constantly eroded the exchange ratio of agriculture, also contributed to the poor financial conditions in agriculture. Satisfactory solutions in this connection are not always easy to achieve without a damaging distortion of a sound economic policy. Consequently I do not want to express an opinion on the steps which must be taken in this connection.

But what I do want to talk about, Mr Chairman, is the present tax structure and how it affects agriculture in general. The present tax structure is an important factor contributing towards financially unfavourable developments in the agricultural industry in that it promotes the overcapitalisation of agricultural land, and in the second place apparently also brings about the injudicious or premature utilisation of working capital for the sake of tax, avoidance.

Submissions have been made to the Margo Commission to amend the tax structure, in so far as it concerns the agricultural sector, in such a way that it will not, as is the case now, be one of the strongest incentives to overcapitalisation and apparently also the injudicious utilisation of working capital. It is a simple business principle in a high risk business that money earned in normal years, prosperous years, is held in reserve so that it can be used during the lean years.

This gives rise to the question why in agriculture the necessary financial planning is not even being undertaken to make provision for normal droughts. The answer is very simple. As a result of the present tax structure in the past it was simply not “good business” to save.

In order to explain to the hon the Minister what I mean by this, I want to make use of an oversimplification. Let us use the following example to see what the effect is of our present tax structure. Let us assume that a farmer makes a profit of R100 000 and he does what previous generations of farmers did and keeps part of that money in a box under the bed. What then happens to that R100 000? Really, Sir, it would be “bad business” to keep that R100 000 in reserve for the lean years. Within the first year this farmer would have to hand over approximately R40 000 in income tax. After that specific year, because the inflation rate in the farming industry is even higher than the figure indicated in the consumer price index, in real terms the remaining R60 000 would be worth less than R55 000. That is why I say that in the past it was “bad business” for a farmer to save—in any case that is what many farmers thought.

This state of affairs was the direct cause of farmers spending R549 million more on fixed improvements, tractors and other equipment after the last really favourable agricultural year—the year 1980-81—than they had spent on average in the preceding two years. In that favourable agricultural year almost three times as much was spent on these expense items than in the preceding few years. What was the reason for this? The reason was that it did not pay the farmers to save.

The State President and the hon the Minister of Finance have indicated on various occasions that they recognised the necessity for the creation of a reserve funds in farming as an attractive alternative to the premature expenditure on agricultural inputs in good years. The reserve fund scheme has been introduced in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other countries with varying degrees of success. The fact that farmers in Australia, for example, are making little use of their reserve fund scheme at present, is because the only advantage of that reserve fund scheme is interest 2% above short-term mortgage rates. This in itself is certainly not sufficient of an incentive for farmers to participate in such a scheme.

Consequently my argument is that we are looking forward expectantly to an imaginative reserve fund scheme for the South African farmer. This is probably the most important method which can be used through which the liquidity problem in agriculture can be alleviated in the longer term.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Fauresmith. He knows that while I was still a member of the governing party with him, I frequently lodged pleas in favour of the South African farmer. I already expressed the view then that if precautions were not taken in good time, the consequences would be catastrophic for South African agriculture. This is the case because the day can also come when a shortage of food can have the same heartbreaking consequences for South Africa as the present riots.

This is an appropriation debate and I want to address myself very briefly to the hon the Minister of Finance, who holds the purse strings. Ordinarily I would not have done this, but this morning I woke up with rather a start when I heard on the early news that the NP had summoned a federal congress, mainly to discuss the continuing riots. I wondered whether I had heard correctly or whether the announcer had not perhaps not read the report incorrectly. I waited for the eight o’clock news, and wrote down word for word what the announcer said. He said:

The radio, which is, after all, to a certain extent a service medium of the Government, is now asking where the Government is headed.

Today I do not want to reproach anyone, because it will not achieve anything. We all live in this country and we all love this country. We are in trouble and we must find a way out. That is why this afternoon I want to ask the hon the Minister in all humility— possibly there will be no response to this request because it comes from this side of the House—to take drastic additional steps to try to resolve the situation in these difficult times. I wondered what one could do. I think that the hon the Minister of Finance can make available an additional half million or million rand to the hon the Minister of Law and Order for a year or so.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order and the Government whether they do not think that the unrest situation in South Africa has assumed such proportions that a four man commission should be appointed to investigate the situation anew. I wondered who could serve on such a commission. I thought of the present Commissioner of Police and the Chief of the Defence Force.

Because the situation in South Africa is so exceptional, I think that these two men will need assistance. People assisting them must have knowledge and experience. Where can we find someone who has gained knowledge and experience over the years? I think two men in whom the Government has had a great deal of confidence over the years, and probably still has, are Gen Mike Geldenhuys and Gen Constand Viljoen and they can assist the other two members. The security situation in the country can be entrusted to these men for six months—at least until after the federal congress—and we can see whether the situation cannot be improved in this way before the congress starts.

I want to read out to hon members what Dr Verwoerd said about a safe state, a stable state:

It must remain under the control of the Government.

My colleague, the hon member for Rissik, mentioned in passing just now that he had been in this House for 20 years. He beats me by a small margin, by nine months, because I have been here for 19 years and 3 months. In the next session, if I am spared, I will also be able to say that I have been in this House for 20 years. From 1910 up to the present day there have been a scant plus-minus 1 000 hon members in this House; let us say there have been 1 000. It has been worked out scientifically that the average parliamentary life of these hon members was seven and a half years. The hon member for Rissik and 17 other hon members have been in this House longer than I have.

Particularly when one is not very talkative, it is a privilege to watch and to learn. What have I seen and learned during the past twenty years? In this House I found what I had found outside this House in the sphere of practical politics, because for twenty years before I came to this House, I worked actively for the NP from the age of 18 years. In those years I found that there are two movements in South Africa politics: A right-wing movement and a left-wing movement. There is no place for other political movements in South Africa.

Over the weekend I read in the English Press that certain businessmen and certain Nationalists—that is what the English Press called them—wanted to establish a new party because they were not satisfied with the NP or the PFP. I want to tell them that they do not stand a chance. If they want to move to the left, there is the PFP, which is the left-wing movement in South African politics.

When I came to this House 20 years ago, I also found the left-wing movement and the right-wing movement here. The right-wing movement was represented by the old National Party, and the left-wing movement by the old United Party. There was another small but very important movement, namely the hon member for Houghton. Her presence was very important, because as the United Party because fence-sitting double talkers—they expressed right-wing views in the rural areas and left-wing views in the cities—the United Party lost votes to the right-wing movement and to the left-wing movement. The NP and the old Progressive Party benefited from that fence-sitting of the United Party. In due course the Progressive Party replaced the United Party as the left-wing party.

If I had to give my speech a caption, I would say: The political movements in South Africa—yesterday, today and tomorrow always the same. This refers to the two movements, the right wing and the left wing. I have also found that history repeats itself and I want to refer to a few statistics.

In 1943 the old United Party, then the left-wing party, won the Wakkerstroom constituency by 551 votes. In 1948, a mere five years later, the NP won Wakkerstroom by 221 votes. This was a swing of 10% or 12%. In 1948 the old United Party won the Vereeniging constituency by 1 229 votes. In 1949, a mere year later, Dr Jack Loock won Vereeniging for the NP with a majority of 16 votes.

In 1981 the NP won Sasolburg with a majority of approximately 3 000. In 1985 the HNP, in the person of Mr Louis Stofberg, won Sasolburg by approximately 300 votes. This is a tremendous swing. Today I want to say that no party is able to satisfy the will, the desire and the political conviction of divergent standpoints. The old United Party tried to and failed. I want to tell the NP that they cannot succeed either.

Today I want to ask the hon members who are informants of the State President something. Do they inform the State President correctly about the political sentiments of the voters outside? In a democratic state it is necessary for the head of state to know exactly how John Citizen feels. He must know how his compatriots feel. In 1948 the United Party suffered the same setback, when General Smuts was totally out of touch with the political sentiments of the man in the street and the people in the rural areas. The people who had to keep General Smuts informed, constantly told him how wonderful he was. I think that in his time and circle he was a great man, but they did not tell him about the sentiments of the people that were turning against him.

General Smuts found out for the first time that the people of South Africa no longer supported him on polling day, 28 May 1948, when he drove from one polling booth to the other in his own constituency, Standerton, and arrived at the main polling booth at seven o’clock in the evening. He asked himself: “But where are my loyal friends who, for years, used to meet me here, who waited for me and made a fuss of me and idolised me?” They were not there. Then General Smuts began to feel uneasy. When he found that he was alone, he noticed an elderly man leaning on a walking stick. Because he was feeling embarrassed and lonely, the general walked over to the man and said: “Sir, that is a beautiful walking stick; may I have it.” The man handed him the walking stick and said: “Here you are, General. You can have this walking stick, but believe me, you will not have Standerton again.” [Interjections.]

It is the duty of the State President’s followers who keep him informed to tell him how the people outside feel. If I want to pride myself on one thing today, I think I can say that I know how John Citizen, the voters in my constituency, feel. There are thousands of White voters in South Africa today for whom even the AWB is no longer right wing enough. That is how much this Government has made the White voters of South Africa feel that the birthright of the Whites was being attacked. [Interjections.] I think that this is what the voters are feeling and saying, and it is making them feel uneasy.

That is why I say that the State President must be given the necessary information so that he will also look back sometimes and will not ride out ahead and leave the small stock behind. The farmers in this House will know that a trek-farmer does not travel as fast as he can; he travels as fast as his small stock allows him to. This is the pace he must travel at. If the people who are informing the State President do not set him right, at the next election, the day will come when people will say to the State President: You can have this walking stick, but you cannot have South Africa again.

Mr Chairman, I should like to elaborate on certain standpoints put by the hon member for Faure-smith. Allow me first, however, to praise the right-wing radical party for the standpoints they have taken on the agricultural industry. This means we can debate those standpoints. This is something quite different from the right-wing radical party’s standpoints on partition, since the voting public is deliberately kept in the dark on that score. [Interjections.] The hon leader of the right-wing radical party arrogantly refused the instruction of his congress to speak to Coloureds about the possibility of a Coloured homeland. He deliberately ignored it so that the voting public know as little as possible about partition. I shall let that suffice, however, and go on to the discussion of agricultural affairs.

I should like to refer to certain statements made by the hon member for Lichtenburg. In the past debate, in fact in the past few debates, he has taken certain stands which at least one can debate this afternoon. In the first place I want to refer to the statement he made that in total the Government is budgeting 19% less for the agricultural industry this year, whereas the total budget has increased by 19%. By doing so he wants to create the illusion in the farming community of South Africa that the Government does not care two hoots for the farmers. In this connection I should like to rectify a few matters. The hon member knows, after all, that in the additional appropriation we provide for example for drought aid. We make provision for disasters when they strike us, since we do not know what the next summer season will hold. Who can predict that? What did the hon member want us to provide for in this Budget? What amount were we to budget for drought aid in this Budget? The hon member for Barberton is probably going to take part in this debate, and I shall be pleased if he gets the chance to tell us what he thinks we should have budgeted for drought aid in the coming financial year. [Interjections.]

Another thing the hon member for Lichtenburg has kept quiet about, is that the bread subsidy which went to the consumer of bread in South Africa, but fell under the agricultural Vote, was decreased by R50 million this year. He will not say that, since it does not suit him to do so. Neither will he mention that last year, during the previous financial year, we had to bear the cost of the damage after the Domoina disaster, for which the financing also came from the agricultural budget. No, he wants to try to broadcast distorted information in a pamphlet of lies which will be issued by his party to mislead the voters. One cannot continue to exist on lies. [Interjections.]

Another standpoint put by the hon member in an earlier debate, is that the Government should write off the fanners’ debt. I am not sure whether or not the hon member for Barberton holds the same view as the hon member for Lichtenburg, viz that the farmers’ debt in respect of private and official organisations should be consolidated and then written off by the Government. If that were ever to happen, it would be the final death-blow for management planning in agriculture.

It is said that many farmers are already budgeting today for State aid to cover normal farming risks. I do not think this statement is far from the truth. Apart from the implications the defraying of such costs would hold for the State to lose those thousands of millions of rands, it is simply not sound business management. We may not do the agricultural industry this injustice. We shall turn it into a mendicant industry, one which will never recover its self-respect. We differ drastically from the right-wing radical party on that point.

A further standpoint put here by the hon member for Lichtenburg is that a moratorium should be introduced on farming debt. A moratorium is introduced only in extreme circumstances in which the possibility of recovery exists in the short term. I put it to the hon member for Lichtenburg that at the moment we are dealing with a long-term problem. I want to mention two phenomena in support of my statement. As I have said, too many farmers do not plan for normal risks. [Interjections.] In our country there are—let us admit it—maladjusted farming systems. Ploughs are used where there should have been cattle. Indeed, that is true. This is part of the long-term problem which agriculture in South Africa has to contend with. There are many other factors, but time does not permit me to dwell on them. [Interjections.] I therefore want to say that the long-term problem we are faced with in South Africa, is a management problem to a great extent— not exclusively, but to a great extent.

My standpoint is that the establishment of a moratorium at this stage will lead to a fiasco in the agricultural industry. The bottom will fall out of the land market. The farmers’ security will be undermined. Will any financing bodies be prepared to lend money to the agricultural industry if a moratorium on it is established in times when it is not justified? Will any sector of the economy have confidence in the agricultural industry? I can assure hon members that a flood of bankruptcies will arise in the agricultural industry, precisely because no financing body will be prepared to lend money to agriculture, because they have lost their confidence in it.

I think the standpoint of the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply is correct, viz that discussions will have to be held with financing bodies to make sure that farmers are not exploited unnecessarily and in that way to ensure that land prices do not fall too drastically. We should rather give the farming value a chance to move closer to the market value in this way, and not cause the market value to drop drastically to almost the level of the farming value by instituting a moratorium. Then we in the agricultural industry can hope to recover again. In this process of adjustment we must give the agricultural industry a chance to work out matters for itself.

A further policy standpoint expressed by the hon member for Lichtenburg in this Second Reading debate on the Budget, is that in his opinion the Government should listen very seriously to the recommendations of the South African Agricultural Union. As far as the standpoint of the South African Agricultural Union is concerned, I take it the hon member for Lichtenburg means input costs in the agricultural industry should be frozen. I shall appreciate it very much if the hon member for Barberton, when he has his turn to speak, will say whether or not it is correct that that is his party’s standpoint.

What do you have against my bench-fellows? [Interjections.]

Our agricultural group met the South African Agricultural Union, as the parliamentary study groups of other parties did. We put it very clearly to the SA Agricultural Union that the freezing of input costs is not acceptable to this party, because why are only input costs to be frozen? If one freezes the input costs, one must also freeze product prices. Nor can one only freeze the input costs for the agricultural industry; one must freeze the input costs and all other costs for all other sectors of the economy. That will mean there will be a massive movement in the direction of a centrally controlled economy, something that is not acceptable to us in this country.

I want to say immediately that we on this side of the House regard input costs as an immense problem which we have to contend with. I think the following figures will prove to be correct if they are checked: Agricultural inflation, particularly in respect of input costs, amounts to approximately 30%. On the other hand, the consumer price index which is the normal indication of the inflation rate, is in the region of 18% or 19% at present. The inflation rate in agriculture is almost twice as high as the latter figures.

I want to take the stand that the existing instruments at our disposal for the handling of this situation, such as the Board of Trade and Industries and the Competition Board, cannot in my opinion ensure effective competition for the lowest possible prices in respect of agricultural input costs. I want to make the further statement that the present instruments and the people who serve in this body—which exists to ensure that there is as much competition as possible—do not have the right feeling for the agricultural industry.

Many of them are esteemed people; esteemed economists with a sound knowledge, but many of them very often forget that the agricultural industry, unlike other economic sectors, cannot manipulate the supply and demand of its products as other sectors can. If it rains, there is a record harvest, but if it does not, there is a bad harvest. This is something other sectors do not have to contend with. I challenge anyone, using whatever publicity campaign, to get the ordinary family so far as to eat more than one bread per day.

My request to the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry in particular is to go ahead with this process in which we are seeking another instrument to see how we can keep input costs in agriculture low by ensuring the most effective competition possible.

The last point I should like to make is that the agricultural industry should be enabled to resolve its own risks itself; it should not have to depend on State aid in the form of drought aid, or for aid in normal risk conditions. The State can never dissociate itself from disaster conditions, and it will and must always render assistance in that respect. That is why we plead, like the hon member for Fauresmith, for the institution of a system of capital formation in agriculture so that agriculture will not be dependent upon the State for provision in the case of normal risks, but in which it can create its own reserve fund which it can work with.

At the same time we argue for the abolition of the writing off of farm machinery for income tax purposes in the same year in which that machinery was purchased. I believe that is one of the greatest malpractices, which has caused the agricultural industry not to make provision for the lean years.

This system must comply with two requirements. The first is that it should level out taxable income. We have a levelling system and in the past farmers themselves could decide whether or not they wanted to take part. A second objective must also be attained in this way, however, viz that the farmers now get the opportunity to put aside a sum of money for the lean years. It is a kind of Joseph’s policy like the one that exists in respect of maize. We therefore request the hon the Minister not to listen to incorrect advice—even if it is the advice of people with good intentions—not to make use of these particular schemes. Let us rather learn from the mistakes of other countries than summarily to shoot down the possibility of a system of this nature in advance.

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the hon member for Vasco a little while ago when he commented somewhat critically on the reported views of Bishop Tutu on capitalism. The hon member mentioned that Bishop Tutu had said he hated capitalism. If one thinks about this, Sir, one will realise that that view is neither inexplicable nor incomprehensible. In fact, I believe that Bishop Tutu’s thoughts on this particular subject reflect fairly common thinking in Black society in South Africa.

You see, Sir, capitalism as administered by this Government over the past 30 years has, in fact, been the capitalism of exclusion. The Black people have been allowed to work for a capitalist society but not to draw the fruits of it or even to be shareholders in it. For instance, job reservation over the past 30 years has ensured that the best jobs within the capitalistic society have not been available to the Black community. The pass laws, as they have been administered, have ensured that the Blacks have not been sufficiently mobile to go to any place to sell their labour as they have wished. Moreover, the very fact that Blacks have been denied home ownership in a capitalist society has ensured that Black families have been unable to step onto that very first rung of the capitalist society ladder in order to achieve their first capital gain, namely after the purchase and sale of a house. Because of this and because of many other actions of this Government, it is small wonder that capitalism is regarded by many Black people as a system of financial oppression. I say that because of this and the happenings of the past, the free enterprise system is in danger in our country today, and urgent action is needed if confidence is to be restored in the Black people for such a system.

Seldom has a truer word been said than was said yesterday by the hon member for Constantia when he referred to the rapidly diminishing options available to those who seek a transition to a fair and equitable political dispensation. As the violence has increased, as youths have been killed in the townships, as detained people have been freed, bringing home stories of violent interrogation tactics, so attitudes, both on the left and on the right of the political spectrum, have hardened. What is happening in the townships now is not just sporadic unrest. I believe it is in fact the beginning of a revolution, and a popular revolution at that. After nearly 40 years of apartheid, after years of race discrimination, after years of selfish budgeting, after years of arrogantly brushing aside all advice and democratic opposition, the political chickens are finally coming home to roost. Revolutions are neither nice nor are they gentle, or even reasonable. Revolutions are rough. They destroy innocent people, they cause misery and suffering, and in time they wreck the economy of any country. They do not always end up by bringing about a free and democratic dispensation which finds favour with the majority. In South Africa’s case, if the revolution succeeds perhaps after years of attrition, I do not see much joy for liberal thinkers. The moderates will have been destroyed and polarisation will be complete. There will not be such a thing as a bill of rights under a new revolutionary government; it will be rule by the leaders of the revolutionary army, perhaps the ANC who already have majority support among the Black population in the urban townships of this country. People do not have to go to Lusaka to meet the ANC. They do not have to go on these continual trips to talk to the ANC. I can introduce them to the ANC in Alexandra and perhaps even in other townships in this country. They are in the majority in Alexandra and I am quite sure they are in the majority in many towns in this country.

Under such a Government there will be people’s courts, jungle justice, people’s education and perhaps the nationalisation of industry. All in all it is a most unappetising prospect. Minorities will enjoy little if any protection.

Already there are many areas in the townships which are no-go areas for the Police. Here I direct my words to the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order. [Interjections.] At the moment there are no-go areas for the Police in the townships. In Alexandra—I know that area well—all policemen and their families have had to move out as their lives are at risk. This must be the only revolution in the world where it is the Police who are the refugees for they are indeed the refugees in Alexandra and many other Black townships of which we know.

The process has gone much further than one realises. Most Black urban dwellers now look upon the forces of law and order not as protectors but as “the enemy”. They are described as such in their speeches. One needs only to read the speech of Zwelake Sisulu who recently made a speech at the NECC conference in Durban. He describes the forces of law and order in this way and he reflects the thinking of Black people.

Rents go unpaid. In Alexandra the rents are not being paid. Electricity bills are not paid. Community councillors live locked in their offices and surrounded by bodyguards. They never go home at night.

The Government has lost control over large areas of the townships at the present time. Decisions of magistrates relating to gatherings, speeches and funerals might never have been made for all the attention that is paid to them when these gatherings take place.

What has been the response of the Government so far to this state of affairs? What is this Government doing to get the country out of the mess it has created itself? Inadequate, vacillating reform such as we are witnessing in this session—there is almost none at all—will fall far short of what is required.

What is the price if we have to continue fighting a revolution rather than moving to a different dispensation? The first victim will probably be the free Press. There will be more detentions without trial, more bantlings, more soldiers in the Black ghettos— called townships—more torture behind closed doors to get information. In the process, the very values we believe in will be destroyed in the name of fighting for the survival of democracy. Some democracy!

Where do we go from here? Of course apartheid must go now. It must go this session. There is nothing that the State President can negotiate in relation to the abolition of apartheid. The Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, separate schools and all other such measures have to go, lock stock and barrel. There is nothing to discuss other than the total repeal of those Acts.

Black leadership must be released, from Mr Mandela downwards, and the ANC and other banned organisations must be allowed to operate as normal political organisations in the political market-place. That too is not something that can be negotiated. It is a prerequisite for peace in this country.

In my view, what has to be negotiated is not the release of the Black leaders or the unbanning of their organisations or even the demise of apartheid. Until these events have happened, there will be no peace, no progress and no negotiation. What remains to be negotiated is a future constitutional dispensation which is fair to all and which protects individuals and their rights to earn, work, acquire wealth and live in peace.

That will yet prove to be the toughest assignment of all, but if these things are not done, and done quickly, we will end up a country racked by escalating violence and ruled by a dictatorship of the hard left or by an authoritarian government of the right. I cannot accept either.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton will excuse me if I do not react to his speech, but unfortunately my time is somewhat limited.

True to the tradition of this House, during my maiden speech I refrained from making contentious statements or giving my impressions of my presence in this House. The procedure is by no means alien to me because for many years I was a member of the provincial council, but if there is one thing which is not only alien to me but also disappointing, it is the absolutely negative contribution made by the opposition side in this House—with perhaps more particular reference to the contribution of the CP.

In the weeks I have been sitting here I have time and again had to listen to one CP speaker after another getting up and trying to make some petty political capital out of everything. [Interjections.] Apart from referring to partition and a White fatherland, which could of course mean anything, I believe that no-one in this House and no one outside really knows what the policy of the CP is. The statement is repeatedly made that the Government has no mandate to proceed with its policy of reform, despite the fact that two-thirds of the White voters of this country, by means of a referendum, gave this Government such a mandate. In the meantime, several of those hon members who were elected to this House by the NP are sitting there, and I should like to know from them where they get the mandate to sit in those benches. It is tragic to think that there are constituencies represented here by people who are not prepared to accept the realities and challenges of the times and who are constantly seeking methods to escape the realities and the truth. I find it shocking to see with what contempt—I repeat, with what contempt—and disrespect, reference is made inter alia to the State President and to hon senior Ministers in this House. Fortunately, however, we know that this truth is still valid: If one does not have respect and esteem for one’s superiors, what respect can one expect from one’s equals and one’s inferiors?

Langenhoven, who himself sat in this House for a long time, put it in a nutshell when he said:

These are the people who now present themselves as the true Afrikaners and the saviours of the Afrikaner and his culture, whereas they are sowing the maximum discord and dissension in the country, not only among Afrikaners but among all Whites. [Interjections.] Yes, they talk about “mislead”, but they go even further. Not only do they mislead the voters, they frighten them too. [Interjections.]

During the debate on the Transport Services budget the hon member for Rosetten-ville made a contribution here which to me came like a fresh breeze through this House, when he spoke about the contribution that the SATS had made, including their contribution in the cultural sphere. I think that every hon member in this House appreciated it, except the hon member for Sunnyside. I am very pleased to see that he is entering the House now. He saw fit to try to make a petty political capital out of this, too.

It is now becoming very clear to me why it is possible for the CP to make the most irresponsible statements in public during elections. It is clear to me why they never address the real issues of our country and its people. I could mention innumerable examples of this. No one will be able to show me a single pamphlet in which they address the real issues. No, they much prefer to confine themselves to the abolition of section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Indians in the Free State, and now all of a sudden they contend that Mr Mandela, who is serving a life sentence in prison, is going to become president of South Africa. [Interjections.] To that they add that South Africa is bankrupt. In the meanwhile the hon member for Sunnyside told us in this House only yesterday what a wealthy country South Africa is. [Interjections.] I can give the assurance that these things are said because these people have no policy. They are the people who say that within 18 months they are going to take over this Government. May the Lord preserve South Africa from that! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman, as well as the hon member for Meyerton, stood up here this afternoon and with great fanfare told us about the wonderful progress that the CP are supposedly making. Let us test this progress they are supposedly making at the place where it can be tested. On 30 April 1985 there was an election in Harrismith.

What was your majority?

I am coming to that. [Interjections.] They were convinced that they would win it. They did everything in their power and used everything they could against the Government. As hon members will know, this election took place just after the abolition of section 16 of the Immorality Act and of the Mixed Marriages Act. What a meal they made of that! What is more, that same week, just before the election, it was announced that the maize price had not been increased. That, too, was manna from heaven for them. [Interjections.] They went even further. They exploited the investigation into the police action at Uitenhage and stated outright that this Government was the persecutor of the Police Force, that seeks to protect us. I could mention innumerable examples of this kind.

What is more, those hon members also went from farmer to farmer telling them: “Do not worry. When we come to power, we shall write off your debt.” I wish one of those hon members would get up and give us an example of how they are going to write off the farmers’ debt. The hon member Dr Odendaal has already referred to that.

As hon members know they did not, of course, win the election. However within six months, on 30 October 1985, there was again an election in Harrismith. Let us see what wonderful progress that party has supposedly made. I should like to mention to hon members the results of only a few of the polling booths that we counted separately, which were the same as in the previous election. This is within six months. Harrismith … [Interjections.]

Deal with Lindley!

I shall come to that.

On 30 April the NP majority in Harrismith was 124; on 30 October it was 336. [Interjections.] At Clarens, where I live, the NP achieved a majority of 38 on 30 April; on 30 October the majority had grown to 102. [Interjections.] Hon members must listen carefully. At Aberfeldy, where lives the Mr C Pienaar to whom they are so fond of referring, the CP achieved a majority of 43 on 30 April, and on 30 October? The NP won that seat! [Interjections.] At Kestell—I hope the hon member for Langlaagte is listening— which borders on the consolidated area, and where the CP told the farmers that the Government was giving everything to the Blacks, the CP achieved a majority of 8 votes on 30 April. What happened on 30 October? The NP majority was 21.

However, let us look at the total number of votes cast during this election. [Interjections.] If we count up the number of votes in the polling booths used simultaneously in this constituency and leave aside postal and special votes … [Interjections.]

Order! There is a great deal of talking going on across the floor of the House; I am not quite sure who is provoking whom, but the two parties should rather refrain from provoking one another. The hon member may proceed.

On 30 April the NP majority was only 33, but on 30 October it was 480.

What is perhaps even more important is to look at the progress made by the NP. During the election in 1981, when Dr Nak van der Merwe was the candidate, the NP attracted 6 008 votes, and the percentage poll was virtually the same as in the previous election. On 30 October the NP drew 615 more votes and therefore attracted 6 623 votes. [Interjections.]

I should like to make the inference that the NP has made progress. I want to give hon members the assurance that the NP will continue to make progress. [Interjections.]

I want to say today that if the CP want to make progress they will have to acquire a policy for the future, a policy which addresses the problems of this country. [Interjections.] They will have to stop trying to build us a better past.

In the brief time at my disposal I should like to exchange a few ideas about subsidies. There are various forms of subsidy. We have interest subsidies, bread subsidies, drought subsidies, housing subsidies, car subsidies and land and water subsidies, and I could carry on in this vein and mention a whole series of these subsidies. Subsidies always remind me of a pain-killing pill; they relieve the pain but never cure the sickness. Just as we can classify pain-killers in various strengths for various categories of illness, we can also classify subsidies in various categories. Thus there are pain-killers and subsidies that afford temporary relief and under this heading we have several schemes.

Just as there are pills that are habit-forming or addictive, there are also subsidies, unfortunately, that some of our people have become addicted to. It is these subsidies that we must guard against, because for every problem that arises the Government must introduce some form of subsidy.

That always causes pain.

That is correct.

To our farmers subsidies have become tremendously important over the past number of years. I predict that in the years ahead subsidies will be of great importance for the farmers. On the other hand it is also true that for many farmers a certain stigma attaches to subsidies, because among certain consumers the belief prevails that it is only the farmers who receive subsidies. According to the present Budget provision is made under the Agricultural Economics and Marketing Vote for a total amount of R421,418 million for the present financial year, and R338,448 million of this has been earmarked for industry subsidies and assistance.

This may leave the impression that only agriculture benefits by this, whereas the truth is that the greater part of these subsidies is for the benefit of the consumers. For example, R150 million is for the bread subsidy that was announced by the hon the Minister, which has already been reduced by R50 million as against the subsidy for the previous year. The hon member for Paarl has already referred to this. This subsidy will be totally abolished as soon as possible in accordance with the Davin Report.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 18h00.